Posted on 02/23/2007 5:48:09 AM PST by cryptical
Medical marijuana advocates tried a new approach Wednesday in their tug-of-war with the federal government, filing suit under a law that requires the government to correct its own misstatements -- including, the advocates say, the assertion that marijuana has no medical value.
"Citizens have a right to expect the government to use the best available information for policy decisions,'' said Alan Morrison, a Stanford Law School lecturer and an attorney in the lawsuit by Americans for Safe Access.
The suit was filed in federal court in San Francisco under the Data Quality Act, a little-known statute signed by President Bush in 2001. It directs federal agencies to allow members of the public to "seek and obtain correction'' of false or misleading government information that affects them.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Has it ever been enforced? Does it apply to the President? Sounds like a feel good or a CYA directive. He can always say "it's not my fault, I told them to..."
Wow! That's going to be one helluva can of worms about to be opened there. Global warming, condom use, abstinence, medical marijuana, the USGS non-explanation for the forming of the Grand Canyon. This could get interesting.
ETS - the government has lied its *ss off on that one.
Tut tut, it's ok if the Government lies. Laws are for the little people.
DQA is, in my opinion, one of the best laws to come out of Washington in decades.
It allows citizens, you and me, to challenge the science behind illegal regulations written by unelected fascist bureaucrats. For example, it has the potential to roll back eco-fascist regulations that strip land owners of the right to use their property.
DQA is specifically designed to throw out junk science regulations. Think global warming...
DQA can rid us of the left wing politics that dominate the Marxist bureaucratic culture.
This, along with President Bush rewriting Executive Order 12866 dealing with regulatory authority, is our opportunity to start rolling back the left wing bureaucratic attack on our rights.
Can anyone post the citation for the Data Quality Act?
Wikipedia has a page on it...
You clearly understand why it will never happen.
No, explain it to me.
DQA info is on the web. How much information do you want? Here's a brief synopsis -
Analysts believe that the information/data quality guidelines will “revolutionize the role of science in policy making by ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of scientific information.” Others believe that the guidelines will be a “central battleground for reshaping or repealling environmental laws and regulations.”
Still others say that the effect of the guidelines will be determined by the number and quality of petitions filed to challenge information and the vigor with which OMB oversees and enforces the requirements.
The administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has stated that the Bush administration is “committed to vigorous implementation of the new information quality law.”
What DQA boils down to is Congress telling bureaucrats that their rules must not be based on unreasonable or unreliable assumptions, anecdotal information or exaggerated models.
DQA aims straight at the heart of bureaucratic rule making - the information an agency uses to write rules.
Supporters of the law say it will ensure that government disseminates only accurate, objective information, and bases its regulations on sound, scientific studies.
Businesses are hoping that DQA will revolutionize agency decisions. DQA rules will allow the American people to challenge an agency in court at any time in the rule-making process if faulty information is used. People can immediately seek judicial review of their complaint if the agency disagrees, even before the rule is final, say a number of attorneys specializing in regulatory law.
I agree with you up to a point. But the assertion that businesses don't want to rock the bureaucratic boat is not correct all the time.
True, liberal businesses in general are afraid to challenge their bureacrat masters, as proved by prop 90 in California.
On the other hand, businesses fought hard for Measure 37 in Oregon, which passed.
Challenging bureaucratic decrees under DQA will probably be left to foundations and think tanks.
I believe the Competitive Enterprise Institute is involved on several DQA challenges. Also a few corporations with money and legal departments are involved.
And I wouldn't count on congress going to bat for aggrieved citizens. It will be up to the courts to wrestle with the bureaucrats.
I still say DQA is a good piece of legislation and should be used agaist the federal fascist bureaucracy. There are several very tough sections in it that can bulldoze junk science bureaucratic rules.
We know there's a lot of deep ecology nonsense in environmental rules.
OMB states that all agencies that sponser peer reviews must be "transparent."
That means the peer reviewers must be technical experts in the field. Also, the reviewers must disclose prior technical/policy positions on the issues, and they must disclose to agencies their sources of personal and institutional funding (private or public sector). And finally, peer reviews must be conducted in an open and rigorous manner.
The analyses must be reproducible, OMB says. This means federal agencies must reveal the assumptions and equations used to develop an analysis. They must also provide all of the uncertainties associated with underlying risk assessments and name the studies that might dispel the uncertainties.
In short, qualified outside parties should be able to obtain the same answer as the government, says OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator John Graham.
DQA is another tool we need to start using.
This one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.